Casey Anthony Trial Verdict

[Cerek]

Originally Posted by Ladyzekke It looks like maybe the media will soon focus on another possible killer mom now (well except for on Saturday when Casey gets out of jail). So things are moving on. I have always thought that things like birth control should be easier to get and cheaper. Maybe if so there would not be so many unwanted, neglected and abused children. Birth control is pretty expensive (at LEAST $50/month, usually more). There are probably a lot of women who cannot afford it, or just don't want to pay such a large price per month. People can try to preach abstinence, but it just doesn't work, human nature and all that. I think having more affordable birth control would at least make a small difference. Just a random thought tonight.

Condoms don't cost $50/month, unless the man (or woman) is sleeping with a LOT of partners OR the same partner many, many times.

If a woman doesn't want to do that, there is always adoption. Either of these are cheaper (and less tragic) than an abortion or killing unwanted children.

I also don't really buy the argument of human nature. It's just an excuse for not exercising restraint or taking precautions.

[Azred]

The best option, in all cases, is to choose mandatory sterilization if you aren't 100% certain you want children. For guys, just a brief visit to the urologist and *snip* you're done. For women it is, of course, more invasive but then you won't have to risk unwanted pregnancies.

[Ladyzekke]

Well condoms aren't anywhere near as reliable. Plus with my "human nature" comment I am mostly thinking about teens, who just don't use mature judgement in these kind of things (so will not use protection and you have to be of a certain age to even get birth control without parent's permission).

They do have more options with sterilization now than they did in the past, with women particularly (temporary and permanent), but not sure how much the procedures cost.

[SpiritWarrior]

Morning after pill is good, but expensive. I have a friend who bouht it like twice this month. I think it's like $45 a pop. As you said getting on birth control is a far more practical option. Too many damned kids in this world.

[Cerek]

Originally Posted by Ladyzekke Well condoms aren't anywhere near as reliable. Plus with my "human nature" comment I am mostly thinking about teens, who just don't use mature judgement in these kind of things (so will not use protection and you have to be of a certain age to even get birth control without parent's permission). They do have more options with sterilization now than they did in the past, with women particularly (temporary and permanent), but not sure how much the procedures cost.

Birth Control Methods: How well do they work?

This site has a chart (on the 2nd page) listing various birth control methods and how effective they are. According to the chart, condoms have a failure rate of about 15%, so they are considered moderately effective. Condoms also have the added advantage of protecting against STDs.

Birth control pills and patch are more effective, with a failure rate of 8%, but don't protect against STDs.

According to the chart, the most effective method is an IUD, with a failure rate of less than 1%. However, IUDs (like the pill and patch) do not protect against STDs. IUD's are expensive up front ($200-$400 according to the site), but many health insurance plans cover the cost (or at least up to 80%). It requires follow-up visits to the doctor, but the device is effective for several years. So, if you average the up-front cost over the effective life, it is one of the cheaper methods available.

As for human nature, I agree teens don't practice the restraint or control adults do. Then again, I've known several adults that didn't practice much restraint either, especially when it came to sleeping with someone other than their spouse.

Abstinence is the only form of birth control that is 100% effective, but you're right that most people (adults or teens) are not going to practice that. So, if you want to have sex, but don't want to have kids (at that time) the responsible approach IS to invest in some form of birth control. If the cost is too much, then abstinence is always an alternative.

[John D Harris]

I watched some of the Horse and pony show, the thing that struck me after listening to several members of the Jury speak out about the verdict, was their complete lack of understanding the English language. They seemed to think "Reasonable" is the same thing as "Any" Those are two completely seperate words with completely seperate meanings. You can have lots and lots of doubts about her guilt and none of those doubts be reasonable. One could doubt she killed her child because space aliens took her, but that doubt isn't reasonable.

But alas the Jury has spoken.

[Cerek]

Originally Posted by John D Harris I watched some of the Horse and pony show, the thing that struck me after listening to several members of the Jury speak out about the verdict, was their complete lack of understanding the English language. They seemed to think "Reasonable" is the same thing as "Any" Those are two completely seperate words with completely seperate meanings. You can have lots and lots of doubts about her guilt and none of those doubts be reasonable. One could doubt she killed her child because space aliens took her, but that doubt isn't reasonable. But alas the Jury has spoken.

I agree, in one respect. Even though the evidence was all circumstantial, when you look at it all together, the only reasonable explanation for everything is that Casey killed her daughter. The fact that she lied constantly and clung to those lies until there was absolutely no way to deny them anymore also speaks to her credibility, as does her willingness to throw her dad and family under the bus to save her own skin.

As for the accidental drowning theory, I still say the one comment from the prosecution covers that very well; "Nobody tries to make an accidental death look like a murder."

Of course, we don't know what type of restrictions the jury was placed under to render a guilty verdict. The one time I actually sat on a jury, it was a case of a local guy with a LOT of money and political clout getting in a fist fight with a blue collar worker after a loooong history of harassing the worker. There was a bill expand part of a local town's city limits. The rich guy (with the clout) did not want the expansion. When it looked like the voters would vote in the annex anyway, he decided the next strategy was to simply get the town worker responsible for laying the water pipe to the new area fired. So he went after this guy with everything he had. He finally went so far as to drive to the guys home on a Sunday afternoon and take pictures of him using "town equipment" for personal use. The worker finally had enough and it ended in a big fist fight with him and his wife sending the rich guy and HIS wife to the hospital after beating the ever-lovin tar out of them.

During the deliberation, MOST of the jury wanted to clear the worker and his wife of ALL charges and give the rich guy NO damages, but the letter of the law required that the worker WAS guilty since he threw the first punch. However, we all agreed the rich guy did DESERVE the ass-whuppin he got, so we cleared the wife of all charges, charged the worker with only one count of assault (which we were required to do) and awarded the rich guy NO DAMAGES.

My concern was that their attorney would file an appeal if we didn't charge the guy with the one count of assault and the next jury might not be as sympathetic. So we finally agreed that one count against the worker would be the least damaging result and prevent the possibility of the case coming to court again.

[robertthebard]

Originally Posted by John D Harris I watched some of the Horse and pony show, the thing that struck me after listening to several members of the Jury speak out about the verdict, was their complete lack of understanding the English language. They seemed to think "Reasonable" is the same thing as "Any" Those are two completely seperate words with completely seperate meanings. You can have lots and lots of doubts about her guilt and none of those doubts be reasonable. One could doubt she killed her child because space aliens took her, but that doubt isn't reasonable. But alas the Jury has spoken.

The correct phrase is beyond a reasonable doubt. If any of the prosecutor's case can be shown to have a reasonable alternate explanation, then the whole case is out the window.

For example: They say the trunk smelled like a dead body, but did anyone observe a dead body in the trunk? Did anyone look? Was there any DNA evidence of a dead body in the trunk? Did anyone look for said DNA evidence? I bought an old car from a mate of mine about 30 years ago, damn I'm old, and it smelled like a dead body. Further investigation provided us with a mouse that had gotten into the trunk, and then died. In 100+ degree weather, it didn't take long to go rancid, and frankly, on any really hot day, even after we cleaned it the best we could, you could still smell it. Had I been sitting on the jury, that experience alone would have been enough to shed a reasonable doubt.

The thing about our legal system is that the defendant is presumed innocent, until proven otherwise. It is not the defendant's job to prove innocence, it's the prosecutor's job to prove guilt. They failed to do so. I don't want to come off like I'm defending the defendant for this, but the jurors did what they were required by law to do. If owning a roll of duct tape makes one guilty of murder, I have two, one sitting where I can see it right now. Law enforcement, both police and prosecutors fell flat on their faces on this one, hoping to overwhelm the jury with circumstantial evidence. Their shoddy work shows in the verdict. The worst part of this, to me, is that they expected that to work. They should know the law better than I do, yet I know that they shouldn't be able to pull that off. A circumstantial case can be built against anyone, since it doesn't provide any real evidence, just a set of circumstances that make somebody look guilty. More than one person has been removed from death row, after finding out, "Hey, they really didn't do it".

All I'm saying is, don't blame the jury, they did what they were required by law to do. Blame the police, and the prosecutors for not doing what they were supposed to do. Again, I didn't follow the case. No media saturation, especially from talking heads that went into it "knowing" she was guilty. All I can do, from a neutral standpoint, is look at the fact that she had her day in court, and the system failed to do enough to convict her. I'd be shocked, if I hadn't seen the justice system fall even flatter on it's face.

My best friend, the guy I used to bar hop on the bikes with every other weekend or so, was gunned down on the street, in front of his wife, by a kid with an illegal firearm, and the kid got probation on a Manslaughter charge because he pled out. Some of our mutual friends tried to post the kid's bail too. I assure you, we felt like some of the opinions here about this case. Only we had eyewitness testimony. His wife was a nurse, and he died in her arms after the kid ran off. It's a sad day when the prosecutor would rather "get a win", than see justice done. They were lazy, or perhaps biased because my friend was a biker, with a criminal history? Either way, that kid literally got away with murder.

[Micah Foehammer]

Originally Posted by robertthebard Was there any DNA evidence of a dead body in the trunk?

Actually yes. DNA evidence taken from hair found in the trunk of Casey's car matched Caylee's.

A veteran FBI specialist on hair samples, Karen Korsberg Lowe, testified a 9-inch strand of light brown hair found in Casey Anthony's trunk not only matched DNA in the Anthony family, but also matched hairs pulled from Caylee's brush.

What's more, Lowe said the hair showed dark "postmortem root banding." In plain English: It came from a dead person.

[Cerek]

RTB - if you read over the responses, you will find that nobody (with the possible exception of John D.) is blaming the jury and, in fact, have all agreed the prosecutors did seem to rely too much on the overwhelming circumstantial evidence. It was also mentioned early on, and illustrated in my own example, that the jury may have had strict requirements that had to be met in order to return a guilty verdict.

You're right that it IS the prosecutions job to meet those requirements and, obviously, they failed to do so. From what I've heard regarding the jurors, it sounds like many of them (if not most) did believe Casey was guilty, but returned a not-guilty verdict because the prosecution didn't meet the requirements necessary for the verdict. Just like in my case, everyone agreed Mr. and Mrs. Rich deserved the ass-whoopin they got and we all wanted to let Mr. and Mrs. Joe Worker off scot-free, but the legal definition of assault required us to find Mr. Joe Worker guilty of one count, since he did throw the first punch. If Mr. Rich had hit him first, then we could have let Mr. Worker off with a clean slate. As it was, he had been charged with assault before (in direct response to the long term harassment) and had said that one more mark against HIM didn't matter. He just wanted his wife to have a clean record and to be cleared of any damages. Mr. Rich was asking for an outrageous amount (like $50k) which would have completely ruined Mr. and Mrs. Worker. When we returned the verdict of one guilty count, but NO damages, Mr. and Mrs. Worker literally fell into each others arms and burst into tears of gratitude.

So, sometimes the jury has no choice but to return a verdict they may not feel is 100% right or fair. I do give the jury credit for NOT following their emotions (for those that felt Casey was guilty) and, instead, DID vote based on the evidence presented.